Soares v. Ghisletta
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Plaintiffs sought damages in the sum of $540 for the alleged conversion of twelve heifers. Defendant denied the conversion and alleged by way of affirmative defense that he had taken up the heifers and had subsequently caused the sale of the same pursuant to the provisions of the Estray Act. (Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 387.) Upon a trial by the court sitting without a jury, defendant had judgment and from said judgment plaintiffs appeal.
Several points are raised by appellants but we do not believe that all of said points require extended discussion. Two of the main contentions are, first, that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Parsons v. EastonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Williams v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Le Mesnager v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Janson v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Reynolds v. FraysherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Forslund v. ForslundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Tanzola v. De RitaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Falk v. FalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Vartanian v. CrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.